Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans' Bank Accounts

[kaz]

I thought people wanted our govt ran like a business?

Liberals fundamentally don't understand economics. It's counter to your liberal religion. This is an impossible statement, you cannot remove competition and then compare something to a business. What drives business is profitability, which is driven by efficiency which is driven by competition. Government should be minimized, not "run like a business."

Kinda funny how people are touting a certain candidate's business experience as a qualification for him to be the country's Chief Exec, then.

So the only reason we're allowed to think business experience is good is specifically to run government like a business. That's the extent of your imagination? What a tiny world you live in.

Reagan was pro-business, but he didn't try to run government like a business, he tried to get government out of business's way. That's what I want from Romney, someone who will stop trying to destroy business like our Marxist in chief. But what I want government to do is as little as possible. Only a fool thinks the government is possibly capable of doing what it does better. It needs to do less.

 

[EriktheRed]

Liberals fundamentally don't understand economics. It's counter to your liberal religion. This is an impossible statement, you cannot remove competition and then compare something to a business. What drives business is profitability, which is driven by efficiency which is driven by competition. Government should be minimized, not "run like a business."

Kinda funny how people are touting a certain candidate's business experience as a qualification for him to be the country's Chief Exec, then.

So the only reason we're allowed to think business experience is good is specifically to run government like a business. That's the extent of your imagination? What a tiny world you live in.

Reagan was pro-business, but he didn't try to run government like a business, he tried to get government out of business's way. That's what I want from Romney, someone who will stop trying to destroy business like our Marxist in chief. But what I want government to do is as little as possible. Only a fool thinks the government is possibly capable of doing what it does better. It needs to do less.

Well, I believe businesses should not be allowed to fuck people over in their pursuit of profits and that market forces are not in and of themselves good enough to stop that - at least not until after a lot of damage has been done. As far I'm concerned, I do indeed want a government that will get IN business' way to prevent abuses that we've seen here in the past and are seeing elsewhere in the present.

IOW, I don't want to see our country become a big FOXCONN in the name of this so-called free market ideal.

 

[daveman]

That would be the 5th EO issued this year relating to Iran sanctions.

Do you have a problem with that?

Didn't you swear an oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution? When you gonna' start doin' that?

His oath to Dear Reader supersedes that.

 

[daveman]

Yep, the Iran sanctions are tough. Thank you, Mr. President. Beats the hell out of invading Iran.

If Obama machine gunned a group of nuns, you'd find a way to rationalize that too. Once intellectual integrity goes, the rest is noise. That's all you are, noise.

"They had it comin'!"

 

[kaz]

Well, I believe businesses should not be allowed to fuck people over in their pursuit of profits

Right, that's a job you reserve for politicians

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That would be the 5th EO issued this year relating to Iran sanctions.

Do you have a problem with that?

I have a problem with this EO possibly being unconstitutional.

 

[daveman]

Obama is a Constitutional scholar -- therefore, it's impossible for him to violate the Constitution.

Right, USMB Obamabots?

 

[MikeK]

This is a step in the right direction.

 

[percysunshine]

Yep, the Iran sanctions are tough. Thank you, Mr. President. Beats the hell out of invading Iran.

You Imperialist dog.

 

[EriktheRed]

Well, I believe businesses should not be allowed to fuck people over in their pursuit of profits

Right, that's a job you reserve for politicians

Nothing for the rest of my post?

 

[francoHFW]

Congress is not in session, would have no problem with it. Only brainwashed Pubbots care. Idiocy. lol

 

[Oldguy]

Liberals fundamentally don't understand economics. It's counter to your liberal religion. This is an impossible statement, you cannot remove competition and then compare something to a business. What drives business is profitability, which is driven by efficiency which is driven by competition. Government should be minimized, not "run like a business."

And "conservatives" must not fundamentally understand the Constitution or how our government works.

He did not bypass Congress. EO's are not un-Constitutional. This is no conspiracy.

Just because y'all are scratching for some reason to find fault with Obama does not make your ridiculous charges true.

I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. And EO's are not Unconstitutional themselves, but you can't do anything with them that is unconstitutional and there is no Constitutional authority for seizing bank accounts without due process.

Though you did answer my question in another post where I said the left would rationalize Obama shooting a group of nuns ... it was an Executive Order ...

Sorry EO's are subject to Constitutionality. And not just when your guy is behind the steering wheel. You're just engaging in partisan bickering. You're like the Republicans. When the Constitution serves you, it's a sledge hammer and when it doesn't it's toilet paper. I support it all the time, being a republic to me is far more important then getting the Federal Government to decree what I want on any transactional issue.

I do hope you realize that Congress gave the President the authority to do what he did. And, they've given similar authority to every President since Bill Clinton.

I know you're talking about "due process" in the legal sense, but Congress allocating powers to the President is "due process" in the Constitutional sense.

 

[Oldguy]

I have a problem with this EO possibly being unconstitutional.

How is it possibly un-Constitutional?

 

[OKTexas]

That would be the 5th EO issued this year relating to Iran sanctions.

Do you have a problem with that?

Only when they thwart due process for US citizens. So much for his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

 

[AmericanFirst]

yep, the iran sanctions are tough. Thank you, mr. President. Beats the hell out of invading iran.

fool!!!

 

[Liability]

The Executive Order is to put into effect (i.e. faithfully execute) an already existing law (actually set of laws).

The main law being put into effect is: Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, the text of which may be found easily enough together with the Iran Sanctions Act, among others. See, Full Text of H.R. 1905: Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 - GovTrack.us

This means the big questions are whether (or not) the Law(s) allow or direct the President to do the very thing he purports to do by this Executive Order and whether (or not) the persons subject to this law as enforced by the President's Executive Order have appropriate judicial recourse to challenge the action(s).

 

[OKTexas]

And "conservatives" must not fundamentally understand the Constitution or how our government works.

He did not bypass Congress. EO's are not un-Constitutional. This is no conspiracy.

Just because y'all are scratching for some reason to find fault with Obama does not make your ridiculous charges true.

I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. And EO's are not Unconstitutional themselves, but you can't do anything with them that is unconstitutional and there is no Constitutional authority for seizing bank accounts without due process.

Though you did answer my question in another post where I said the left would rationalize Obama shooting a group of nuns ... it was an Executive Order ...

Sorry EO's are subject to Constitutionality. And not just when your guy is behind the steering wheel. You're just engaging in partisan bickering. You're like the Republicans. When the Constitution serves you, it's a sledge hammer and when it doesn't it's toilet paper. I support it all the time, being a republic to me is far more important then getting the Federal Government to decree what I want on any transactional issue.

I do hope you realize that Congress gave the President the authority to do what he did. And, they've given similar authority to every President since Bill Clinton.

I know you're talking about "due process" in the legal sense, but Congress allocating powers to the President is "due process" in the Constitutional sense.

You can't legally legislate the 4th amendment away, due process is only found in the courts.

 

[Intense]

That would be the 5th EO issued this year relating to Iran sanctions.

Do you have a problem with that?

Didn't you swear an oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution? When you gonna' start doin' that?

Constitution fundamentalist.

Grow up.

 

[Liability]

I have seen nothing in the laws referenced or in the Executive Order which would deny to a person, who is affected by the Executive Order, the right to seek judicial intervention.

If the President's EO were deemed to be applicable to that pig-dog Matthew, for example, then even that scum-bag could go to Court to seek "relief."

So what's the hub-bub?

Don't we WANT Iran and Syria subject to sanctions for their fucking atrocious behaviors?

 

[Intense]

That would be the 5th EO issued this year relating to Iran sanctions.

Do you have a problem with that?

Only when they thwart due process for US citizens. So much for his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

His Oath is meaningless.